Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @10:47AM
from the just-helping-you-out dept.

overThruster writes "Some voters in Las Vegas have noticed that Democrat Harry Reid's name is checked by default on their electronic voting machines. By way of explanation, the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Angle, has her name checked by default."

Really, all voters should be presumed to cast a "none of the above" ballot unless they specifically vote otherwise. Yes, even those who abstain by not showing up. Failure to even show up is a vote of no confidence in the system itself, which is a very important statement and deserves to be counted.

If the majority of the population doesn't even show up to vote, that is a de facto vote against the system. Nobody can claim a mandate to govern under such circumstances. Any government elected under such circumstances cannot be considered legitimate.

The problem with a no-confidence plebiscite is the resolution. Historically, when an election provides the option of returning no winner, like many parliaments have or once implemented, you'd end up with a situation where the body went months or years without a leader, and in the vacuum other institutions (like revolutionary parties) would take over -- eventually if you belong to the group with the most money or guns, it becomes in your interest to spoil the votes because you benefit from the chaos and can claim the body is "do-nothing."

The best way to protect the democratic institution of voting is ensure that it always returns an unambiguous result. If it isn't able to do this all the time, the institution itself will lose legitimacy.

Uh... actually, it is a requirement, at least if someone is not currently an American citizen but wants to become one. Per Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], under "Eligibility for Naturalization", they "must have a working knowledge of the English language". It does note some exemptions for older applicants and those with disabilities.

For immigrants to vote, they must be Citizens. To become one if they aren't already, they need to understand English. Not at a graduate level, perhaps, but they need to know some of it.

A friend of mine has a US citizenship by virtue of being born there, but he was born of Norwegian parents (sailors) and more or less immediately returned to Norway. The US has not participated in his education in any way. Now, he does speak English (because learning that is mandatory here), but if his parents had been from another country, he could easily have avoided learning it.

Also, this guy, who has no particular ties to the US (I don't think he's ever visited) gets to vote and could run for president

And on the flip side, I give you various signs at Teabag rallies [google.com]. Though written and not spoken, some choice examples (emphasis mine): Obama: Commander and Theif, Respect Are Country, Remember Descent the Highest Form of Patriotic, Politicians Are Like Dipers, Obama Lier In Chief...

Examples like these make me think that an awful lot of people protesting at Tea Party

The US does not have an official language at the Federal level. If a state only wants to issue ballots in English, I believe they can, but they are also allowed to issue them in other languages if they want to. If Nevada wanted to they could provide you with options for every single written language in the world.

I don't know about Iowa, but in California you can only cast a provisional ballot; your vote doesn't get counted until your registration checks out (which usually means the electin is decided before they get around to counting your vote.)

I'm sorry, but your comment is just ridiculous bigotry. I was born outside the US, and since my mother was a US citizen, I have US citizenship by birth. I did not become proficient in English until I moved to the US around the age of 13. So yeah, the test is required for naturalization, but that's not the only way to citizenship. And yes, those born here in the US have no requirement to learn English. Then there's those who can only speak one language (English), but can't really read or write. But that's beyond help.

Voting requirements are typically established by local and state government, not by the Feds. I assume small-government types would like it that way. Historically, non-citizens have been able to vote in local, state and federal elections in over 40 states and territories. [immigrantvoting.org] It is more recent, anti-immigrant sentiment that has started to restrict voting to citizens only.

Historically, voting has been considered a right of anyone who pays taxes. "No taxation without representation!" was the rally cry of the original Tea Party. The current "tea party" seems to have an altogether different agenda.

There are tens of millions of workers in the U.S. who are not citizens but pay taxes. According to the principles of the founders the U.S., their payment of taxes entitles them to vote.

Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.

I think Woodrow Wilson is standing outside your window right now, getting ready to force you to learn Spanish.

What's wrong, is that you don't see anything wrong with people who are *not* bona fide US Citizens having a vote in a US election.

How about I get a vote on the board at your company which determines when, if, and how much of a raise you should get? Or a vote at your HOA/POA meetings, when it comes time to determine how to spend the money you pay into the collective account? Or we could just cut out the meetings and voting, and I get to say how you can or can't spend your money. Yep, that's fair, isn't it? Makes a whole lot of sense, right?

Because I have a special legal status which, thanks to the accident of birth, entitles ME to be recognized as a real person with interests and needs, but not THAT GUY OVER THERE. If we include him in the decision-making process then the resulting decisions might not privilege me so uniquely! Pandemonium!

Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.

Who is bringing up what laws where? BTW, I heard that some conservatives want to do something possibly bad somewhere. Prove me wrong.

In any case, anyone who can vote holds de facto citizenship. In a democracy, a citizen is someone who has power over the government. However, a democracy also requir

"Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections, joining places like San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it."

The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally.

If you heard this secondhand, then you need to check out your sources before spouting off.

There is one city - not state - putting this up for vote: Portland, Maine. And it only applies to the local elections. Other cities and states do this, and have in fits and starts over the last 150 years or so.

It is a GOOD thing for the residents of a city to be involved in local politics. Let localities decide who is an is not a "citizen" of their region. That's not "progressives" - that's good old-fashioned individua

Actually, it is 'progressive'. A major aim of the Progressive Era was election reform. Without that, there'd be no recall or ballot initiative laws, and party bosses would still pick candidates instead of having primaries, and, of course, the seventeenth amendment directly electing Senators and the nineteenth allow women to vote.

While I can't think of any specific 'let non-citizens vote' concept (I suspect the Progressives would actually push for immigration reform instead.), it's not incredibly off-kilter from the rest of the stuff. I mean, they demanded letting all citizens vote. (People tend to get confused. Women were always citizens. It's just there's no requirement that all citizens be allowed to vote.)

Maybe not speak (i.e. technically mute (You Insensitive Anonymous Clod)), but citizens should be able to read English (by braille if nothing else). The states are required to provide K-12 education (of which English is a required subject for all 13 years). The state is also required to provide education meeting the needs of any disadvantaged/disabled child which includes special ed, braille, sign language, full time dedicated teacher's aid, and while some of those require parents to go through the court s

Maybe not speak (i.e. technically mute (You Insensitive Anonymous Clod)), but citizens should be able to read English (by braille if nothing else). The states are required to provide K-12 education (of which English is a required subject for all 13 years).

English is not a required subject in all jurisdictions. Whether to make it so or not is up to the state or local government, and there are often strong political reasons not to--for instance, while the overwhelming majority of Navajo speak English there i

Not really. They live in their own, separate nations, and are able to do things however they want. They're not even subject to the laws of the States that their reservations happen to lie within; they only answer to the Federal government, and deal with them on a treaty basis through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

For instance, here in Arizona, state law is that you can own a gun, and as of recently, you can carry it concealed with you just about wherever you want without a permit. However, if you cross ov

Racism probably wasn't the word they were looking for. You made a statement that assumes anyone that doesn't speak English obviously wasn't from here, which is definitely not always the case.

Generally speaking, hard to imagine being born and raised in the US without knowing to speak English...is kind of needed to really succeed and operate in this country.

While it may be true that today almost all people born in the USA will learn English, there are still some older citizens that might have not ever bothered to learn because the largely self sufficient communities they live in don't primarily speak English.

It isn't racist to expect visitors to this country to follow the "when in Rome" type thinking, is it?

"Anchor baby" is a ridiculously loaded term, and one that shows ignorance of how immigration works in the US. A child born in the US to non-citizen parents must be 21 years old before he or she can act as a sponsor for the naturalization of the parents.

If people are doing what your use of the term suggests, it is an incredibly inefficient way to get legal residency.

How is it dehumanizing? Yes, a bit harsh and sarcastic, but it doesn't seem really dehumanizing. He could have phrased it all a bit better, but I don't really see anything inaccurate or particularly vile about it. The truth of the matter is that it is a stupid law that made sense at the time but makes none now.

I don't think the drafters of the Constitution were in favor of today's "anchor babies". Or would be.

Well, for starters, non-citizens who give birth don't run 20 feet across the border and shit out a baby in the dirt; they tend to be living here, and they go to the hospital or midwife, just like everybody else.

The drafters of the Constitution protected the right of a white man to own a black man, so I'm not going to ask them what they think. The 14th amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the US because Southern states used all kinds of nit-picky tests to deny black people citizenship.

"I cannot believe there is a real requirement for English anymore - it would be divisive and against the overall policy of diversity. "

What policy of diversity are you talking about?

There is no diversity when it comes to being an American. Once a citizen, you are to assimilate into the big melting pot that is America, at least that's how it has been working till about the last few decades.

Sure, bring your cultural gifts and traditions...but make them part of the greater US culture.

Sure, you'll still be diverse in the things about you you cannot change...sex, race...etc. But when you become a US citizen, you really should cease to be a any other -ian. That's the point of becoming a US citizen. So, come here..learn the language, integrate into the society. If you want to stay German and speak only German...why bother coming to the US and going for citizenship? Same for coming from China, or Mexico or anywhere else? If you don't want to join and intergrate itno the larger American society, why fucking bother coming here and becoming a citizen.

If from wherever you came from was so great...why not stay there? Why try to change the US into YOUR country?

When I go to another country, I certainly don't expect to vote...and I don't expect them to make everything accessible in English. No, if I visit over there, I try to learn as much of the language as I can.

I've noticed that other countries don't bend over as backwards as we're trying to do of late...and I wonder why we are changing? I don't think they should...and I don't think WE should either.

It takes a peculiar sense of entitlement to say "If you all won't agree and give me a pre-made set of choices which match my desires perfectly, I'll take my ball and go home." If you want a candidate who agrees 100% with you - run for office. If you don't like the democratic or republican candidate - support a third party candidate that does agree with your views. Elections don't happen randomly, with no advanced notice. You have plenty of time to educate yourself, decide which candidates to support (or whether or not to run yourself). Refusing to participate, and then demanding that everybody else allow their government be dissolved to honor the fact that your wishes weren't met (even though you did nothing to go out and try and make them come true yourself) is a childish notion.

If you refuse to participate in the process at all other than to show up on election day and check a box on the ballot, don't expect to have a large voice in shaping the political landscape.

Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect of, "The people get the rulers they deserve." He was right. Your options are:1) Don't participate, and just grumble about the choices other people make;2) Participate actively in shaping your political system & your society, secure in the knowledge that even if your guy loses, your rights are protected under the constitution, and you can continue trying to bring people around to your way of thinking;3) Let your society collapse into a patchwork of warring tribal factions (See: Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan), with power falling to the most ruthles.

Saying, "Right, Hatta wasn't happy with the results, let's do it all over again, and let's get some new candidates on stage this time," is a recipe for #3. Your wishes do not trump the wishes of millions of other people who did take the time to support candidates & go out and vote.

I'm Canadian, so maybe the political situation is completely different "down there", but I think you are reading a little too much into people not showing up to vote.

Sure some people are making a statement by not voting, but I think most who do not vote are either lazy (probably the majority) or don't feel they have enough understanding to make a serious choice.

And personally, I would actually rather have a relatively small turn out of voters making a choice based on their beliefs, than a huge crowd of people just randomly picking a candidate because everyone is telling them they must vote. Voting isn't the important part.. keeping yourself aware of the politics of your country is!

I do like the idea of specifically counting people who say "I don't think any of these are good" and maybe even a "I don't feel confident to make a choice". Would be an interesting number to see.

In Belgium there is an obligation to vote. As we have a multi-party system, the situation is also different then in the US. People are so fed up will all the silliness, many vote at random. This paralyzes politics.

You cannot assume that someone not showing up equals a vote against the system.

My wife will regularly not-vote in an election. It is not because she's disillusioned with the system...its that she just really doesn't give a fuck.

I do believe that there absolutely has to be an option of "All these assholes suck" on every ballot, and these votes should be counted against the rest of the votes. If the majority ov people who voted voted for "none of the above" - then basically the vote for that district should

I am an election judge, I would be happy to provide the number of spoiled ballots.
In my last election, there were 3.
They were the results of either stray marks where the voter rested their pen in a box before checking a different box, and the machine wasn't sure which they meant, so they got a new ballot. The other case was where there were multiple candidates for 1 race (more than 2 candidates) and the voter chose more than one.
If you would like I will post again next week with the spoiled ballot count for this election. We have to keep track of every single ballot, so knowing the number of spoiled ballots is trivial.

"So how would one indicate a lack of confidence in the system, as opposed to the specific candidates? Abstaining is not simply a way of expressing apathy; it can also indicate that one finds the office itself illegitimate."

That's not the problem. The real problem is that under a representative democracy (or republic) you ended up putting the fox to take care of the hens in this issue.

Solution (to your proposed problem): allow for a blank (or "no one of the above") vote. I don't know for the USA but a ton

No, they mean Sharron Reid. It's so if you're not paying total attention you see Sharron and think it's Sharron Angle. This way the vote will be for neither Harry Reid or Sharron Angle (where it obviously would mean more). Just kidding.....

The more interesting question, what if you don't want to vote for anyone (which should be the default)? Is there no option for that? Don't have time to read thru this whole thread.

The problem is likely some poor interface design. I've seen it used deliberately on some installers in order to sneakily add other products. It may follow a series of "Next" buttons that asks "Also install McAfee agent" or "Install Yahoo Toolbar"... In this case, the checkbox for the candidate may happen to be on the "Next" button of the previous screen.

sounds like it's not a "default" per se, i bet something isn't being cleared from the register after selection so the next menu has a persistence of touch location.

shitty embedded UI programming,

i would guess that rather than being even driven the UI cycles through an input loop that looks like an old basic getkey x loop, (except gettouch x,y) and fails to clear x and y after selecting a language and proceeding to the voting menu

The geek's definition of government.I think we should go back to paper scantrons. They can be counted twice - once by machine, and again by hand, for verification. Also it's hard to rig an election when you have several thousand pounds of paper laying around.

The article implies that it's due to people keeping their finger on the touchscreen when they select a language preference. The location of Harry would be in the same screen location as English, where Sally would be in the same screen location as Spanish. Really, it's just sloppy coding, as you should wait until the user's finger is lifted before allowing another selection.

The article implies that it's due to people keeping their finger on the touchscreen when they select a language preference. The location of Harry would be in the same screen location as English, where Sally would be in the same screen location as Spanish. Really, it's just sloppy coding, as you should wait until the user's finger is lifted before allowing another selection.

I saw nothing in the article that says all of these voters selected Spanish as their language. The only close I saw was the explanation given by the poll worker.

"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."

Well if you read the link and not Slashdot's terrible, slanted, and sensationalist summary you will see that wasn't said.The problem is a simple UI issue.From reading the article it seems that they implemented the select language touch as select on touch begin and not select on touch end.So if you hold your finger down long enough the next screen pops up and your finger will be on one of the candidates.It is a simple UI issue combined with people being on auto pilot. Honestly not a huge issue because you should really check it before you hit next anyway but it should be fixed.

Not evil or a conspiracy or anything but a UI error that really isn't that terrible if people bother to read. And yes it is so the type of UI problem that I would expect in any program like this.

Also note that if you read the story, it is the Republican you get if you hold down on English too long. Presumably even in Nevada that is the more likely scenario. Nice deal when you can have a bug in your favor and complain about it too...

Not evil or a conspiracy or anything but a UI error that really isn't that terrible

If incompetence and sloppy design work in your favor it is exactly that: "evil or a conspiracy".
That's how most gender or minority discrimination usually works.
Incompetence and a attitude of not-thinking/ not-caring is what protects the status quo. I've seen it in job applications - and also your defense "just a mistake".

Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid's name was already checked.

Whoa!

Sometimes, when I don't like any candidate for a particular office, I abstain and thinking, maybe naively, that it will be noticed in the count - 20,000 votes cast but only 19,999 for the office of [whatever] . Selecting someone by default goes against my choice and I would consider that to be fraud. Period.

The article was lousy. There was no "default" candidate being set. It correctly starts out as a blank ballot. The issue is that if your finger is still lying on the touch screen when the ballot comes up it will instantly trigger whatever candidate your finger happens to be touching. It happens so fast that the voter never saw the blank ballot. It looks as if the candidate came up pre-selected. You can change that mistaken selection before casting the ballot.

An important difference with the FDIC, however, is their track record. Since going into effect during the great depression, no depositor in a failed bank has ever lost money (within the FDIC limit). And if the FDIC ever didn't have enough funds to cover depositors, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would believe that the US Treasury wouldn't step in and provide the necessary funds.

It is not unreasonable to have faith in a system that has demonstrated it is worthy of trust. Electronic voting, s

the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Reid's name is checked by default.

This is so screwed up it's not even wrong. Why on earth should there be any default selection on the ballot? And why should the language have anything to do with it? It sounds like Clark County needs some new election officials, after they finish tarring and feathering the current ones.

Actually if one reads the link you will see that Slashdot is at it again.They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking.This is a coding error. They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen.In other words it is a UI error and not some great evil conspiracy.

Okay Slashdot please stop using the FOX News and the Daily Workers guide to ethical journalism when writing the summaries!

They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking.

That's not the only thing wrong here. A properly designed electronic voting machine will randomize the names of the candidates to avoid giving any one of them an advantage from being on the top of the list. If this voting machine had done this, the double picking errors would be random and not affect the result of the election. That the names are not randomized is a much, much bigger flaw in this voting machine than the double picking bug described here.

Paper ballots are not randomized and in my state they send out copies of the ballot so you can study them and see who is running.

Suppose I did study the ballot sent to me and then I am presented with one that doesn't match?I am allowed to take may study ballot in with me and for some people a randomized ballot could be more confusing.A non-randomized ballot is no worse then a traditional paper ballot.

"Actually if one reads the link you will see that Slashdot is at it again.They are touch screen systems. If you keep your finger on them to long you end up with double picking.This is a coding error. They just need to change the select from touch begin to touch end and maybe add a next button to take you to the next screen."

Perhaps, but it is a coding error in a production system of some importance right? Should this have not been dealt with before going live? To me, this sort of error would invalidate an e

From TFA: "Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they choose their candidate."

It is interesting how the options work out; but the real issue here is a lousy hardware/software implementation. I wonder if any individual can control the layout well enough to purposefully take advantage of this. (Obviously the orig

What happens is that when you touch the screen to select "English" as your language, it immediately goes to the next screen where you select your candidate. But the old button that said "English" is very close to where the new button that votes for candidates appears.

So if you are slow to remove your finger from the "English" button, your finger is already on the 'vote for candidate button', resulting in what the slow voter thinks is a default vote.

This is:

1. A bad GUI design. Grade D- in my opinion for putting the touch buttons so close and keeping the touch time too short/sensitive.

2. A bad tester, if they did any. Grade F. I mean really, was this that hard to catch?

3. Reminds me of moronic and illegal paper 'butterfly ballot' used in Florida not that long ago. Can't we get competent people to design these things?

welcome to the new economy, mate. its not about getting things right, its about getting it down the cheapest way possible. hiring people who are too inexperienced to know better (hint: younger ones are cheaper. overseas ones, cheaper yet).

we get what we pay for. when we disrespect our own working force, we all lose.

There is no default choice. The selection screen is right after the language screen. If you press English and linger too long, it also selects what ever is at the position when the next screen shows up.

This is a 'young tester' type of bug. Any tester whose is comfortable and used to the type of technology won't see it. As soon as an old person whose finger lingers, it shows up.

Really..? FOX News shouldn't be used as a reference for any intelligent news stories..

This was the local Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. The two are not necessarily related. For example, do you think that people as right wing as you think FoxNews is would play Family Guy, American Dad the Simpsons and even Married with Children?

Fox is right wing, but not all of it is as insane as Beck. With the simpsons, they can show they got a humor but also make Homer into a kinda reverse hero. Left wingers might see him as an idiot and an example of everything that is wrong with people who vote against healthcare until they need it but he ALSO survives all his mistakes. He never dies in the unsafe work environment and has his widow screwed out of compensation. He hasn't undergone forced sterilization and this is NEVER ever mentioned despite th

Seriously. If Democrats are pulling this and Republicans are renaming candidates "Rich Whitey" with this bald faced implausible deniability imagine what dirty tricks they are pulling behind closed source code. It's a fucking travesty.

You do know that the incident you are referring to occured in Illinois? And that the overwhelmng majority of Illinois elected officials are Democrats? In particular, the state board of elections is dominated by Democrats.